Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

In in re: Grand Jury Subpoena Duces, 368 F. Supp. 2d 846 (W.D. Tenn. 2005), John Doe 1 & 2 (collectively, “Petitioners”) were served with a subpoena to testify before a Federal Grand Jury. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2257, the subpoena required the Petitioners to bring with them any and all records pertaining to models used by their company Petitioners attempted to quash the subpoena by arguing that it violated their 5th Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. The United States asserted that the 5th Amendment did not protect the Petitioners because the documents requested were records required to be kept pursuant to §2257.

(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and

(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;

shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

In Shapiro v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to records that are required to be kept pursuant to a valid regulatory scheme. Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 17-18, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948). However, the “required records” exception is construed narrowly in preservation of the 5th Amendment’s constitutional purpose. United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944). The government’s request for information will be granted under the exception if it meets the following three requirements:

(1) the purpose of the government’s inquiry must be essentially regulatory, rather than criminal;

(2) the records must contain the type of information that the regulated party would ordinarily keep; and

(3) the records must have assumed public aspect which render them at least analogous to public documents.

The Supreme Court explained that §2257 targets a specific group of people. Specifically, it targets producers of media depicting sexually explicit conduct that utilizes performers who either are, or appear to be, minors. Additionally, the Court noted that although the record keeping requirement applies to “all producers of media depicting sexually explicit conduct,” it is not necessarily regulatory. The requirement does not foreclose the possibility that it targets a select group inherently suspect of criminal activities. Further, the production and distribution of child pornography is inherently illegal.

The Supreme Court concluded that §2257 is not regulatory in nature. This is because it targets a highly selective group that is inherently suspect of criminal activities, and is a part of a criminal enforcement scheme that seeks eradication of child pornography. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted Petitioners’ motion to quash the subpoenas because the government did not meet the first prong of the required records exception, to wit: that the purpose of the government’s inquiry must be essentially regulatory, rather than criminal.

Internet Picture Removal[MUSIC PLAYING] One of the issues that has come up again and again in our practice relates to the wrongful posting of information about another person on the Internet. This is another example of how the law has simply not kept pace with the developments that have occurred in the 21st century. It used to be that when someone gossiped about another person, or said something that wasn't true, that ancient concepts of defamation, concepts of interference with someone else's business or prospective economic advantage, these common law concepts would protect the person. It used to be that when you gossiped about somebody else, you did it in the town square. You did it at a community meeting. You did it behind closed doors. Needless to say, that's not the situation anymore. Now when someone wants to say something about someone else that's not true, when someone wants to defame them and hurt their reputation, all they need is a computer, an Internet connection, and a bad motive, and they can literally make a worldwide comment about this person. They can post something that can be seen in every country in the world. Millions of people. How do you deal with that from a legal perspective? And the answer is that there are techniques that we can use. They are not perfect and they're not complete. But there are techniques. For example, what was it that this person said? Was it opinion? Or was it a fact? And if it was a fact, can it be proven to be an untrue fact? Can it be proven that this person knew that it was untrue or that it was said negligently? All these questions come into play in the context of something that is said that should not have been said because it was possibly defamatory. But there's another level. And the other level is, can we find a way to say that this is also a violation of intellectual property rights? In other words, think about it. Did this person lift a picture from a website that they didn't own? Or took it from a camera or cell phone if they didn't have access to? And they should not have access to it. And somehow, they got a hold of it. And they posted it as part of the possibly defamatory material. Wouldn't that begin to state a claim for infringement of intellectual property? And if so, is there a way of being creative in the representation in the legal analysis so that we're not limited to whether this thing was true or not? Certainly we're not limited to whether it was a bad thing to say or not. We know that. It was a bad thing to say. But also is there legal significance to what they did that goes beyond the truth of the matter? These are the sorts of questions that we ask when we deal with people who are the victims of wrongful posting. There's this new concept of revenge pornography that is taking our culture by storm. In essence, it's someone taking a picture, often from a girlfriend or boyfriend, a picture that was taken in the privacy of that relationship. And after that relationship is over, that one of the people taking and posting the picture online, making it publicly available in order to humiliate or otherwise punish the person after breaking up with them. Hence the term revenge pornography. Unfortunately, the minute a picture is taken and shared on the Internet, it becomes instantly available to an exponential number of people. Once it's on one website, a lot of times these adult websites have a tendency of just stealing pictures. So it's not the fact that they have the rights to it and are going to prohibit their competitors from taking it. But there tends to be a common practice in the industry of it being on one website. The next website steals it, posts it, and it just is an ongoing effect where one person posted one picture. And all of a sudden, it's everywhere. And now you're dealing with innumerable websites that you now have to contend with to get the picture actually removed from the Internet. Unfortunately, this is a little bit of a unique legal situation in that the clients are often dealing with a huge emotional undertone to this representation. They are often coming to us having been humiliated. They are embarrassed that the pictures are out there. They don't want their employer, their kids, their kids' friends, or even sometimes their spouses to know that these pictures exist. We have to sit there and say, very dispassionately, very objectively, is this the kind of thing that we'll be able to convince a judge violated the law? Our firm welcomes inquiries about this sort of thing. It's something that we take very seriously. And it's something that we like to help with as necessary. [MUSIC PLAYING]